The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
This is bullshit considering that I already had a definition of free will. Btw, philosophy students don't really know how to debate. This is especially entertaining since you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of.

You do realize what dedicated philosophy students do, don't you? Someone like you that takes Philosophy 101 and then dismisses it as mental masturbation because it challenges your precious Jewish dogma, is not a philosophy student. A dedicated philosophy student is someone like me, that has taken the majority of their credits in classes like: Categorical Logic, Propositional Logic, Ethics, Philosophy of Religion, Modern Philosophy etc.

Do you know what we do in those classes? We write long papers on subjects like these and go through peer review, applying critical thinking skills and logic all the time. Perhaps we can't spew fallacies like a lawyer and make it sound right through the use emotive language and bullshit, but we do know how to debate logically.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
t's an illusion from your perspective. I think it's "bizarre" and "absurd" to look at free will from an omniscient perspective. You can call it an "illusion", but as far as humans are concerned, they make their choices and they face the consequences. Now I would love to continue this but please show something that's not straight out of the "intro to Philosophy" textbook. I wasn't aware there was a universal definition for "free will".

This is hilarious, absolutely fvcking hilarious.

“You can call it an "illusion", but as far as humans are concerned, they make their choices and they face the consequences.”

Because humans believe something, it must be true? Is this a William James wank? Is man the measure of all things now? You just shot yourself in the foot by claiming that because humans believe that the illusion is true, it must be true.

This isn't about the limits of human perception. Because at the beginning of the debate, you established God as being a factor, things must be considered with God as a variable. Things are true not because they are useful to us . They are true because they correspond to something in reality as we can know it. At the beginning at the debate you said that we should accept that for the purposes of the debate, that God exists. This has for the context of the debate, established God as a tautologous figure and ergo, the resulting consequences of having God in the picture must be considered. You can't just change the rules to fit your argument and limit the context of the debate to human perception because this debate is about the consequences of an omniscient God.

Originally posted by Autokrat
You do realize what dedicated philosophy students do, don't you? Someone like you that takes Philosophy 101 and then dismisses it as mental masturbation because it challenges your precious Jewish dogma, is not a philosophy student. A dedicated philosophy student is someone like me, that has taken the majority of their credits in classes like: Categorical Logic, Propositional Logic, Ethics, Philosophy of Religion, Modern Philosophy etc.

Do you know what we do in those classes? We write long papers on subjects like these and go through peer review, applying critical thinking skills and logic all the time. Perhaps we can't spew fallacies like a lawyer and make it sound right through the use emotive language and bullshit, but we do know how to debate logically.

Because humans believe something, it must be true? Is this a William James wank? Is man the measure of all things now? You just shot yourself in the foot by claiming that because humans believe that the illusion is true, it must be true.

This isn't about the limits of human perception. Because at the beginning of the debate, you established God as being a factor, things must be considered with God as a variable. Things are true not because they are useful to us . They are true because they correspond to something in reality as we can know it. At the beginning at the debate you said that we should accept that for the purposes of the debate, that God exists. This has for the context of the debate, established God as a tautologous figure and ergo, the resulting consequences of having God in the picture must be considered. You can't just change the rules to fit your argument and limit the context of the debate to human perception because this debate is about the consequences of an omniscient God. [/B]

http://www.beingjewish.com/soul/freewill.html

Technically speaking, I suppose it would be possible for God to be omniscient AND still maintain free will. This is why I hate omnipotence, the ability to argue anything about god and ignore all paradoxes etc.

Right.. I spend a month sitting in a class where the teacher tries to disprove God. Completely logical.

It would be hella fun. Trust me, my friend Paul is a muslim and we really got a kick out of arguing in Philosophy class. Its always nice to have different perspectives and to discuss them. As long as it doesn't become personal or devolve into a real argument.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Technically speaking, I suppose it would be possible for God to be omniscient AND still maintain free will. This is why I hate omnipotence, the ability to argue anything about god and ignore all paradoxes etc.

How about we just drop it? I don't particularly care about this debate and I'm set in my ways while Veneficus is set in his. This is just going to go in circles with nobody being right.

I think you should too. Its not going anywhere and if people really want to discuss it they can hop over to the forum where we're supposed to be talking about this kind of thing.

Yea, either or I don't care. This isn't interesting for me. There are many things that I would enjoy debating about that doesn't include philosophical and religious plot holes.

I've come to the conclusion that Andrew Ryan and I are not going to be getting on very well on these forums.

I've come to the conclusion that Veneficus was picked last for kick ball (that is a joke).

I've come to the conclusion that it is much more edifying to read things by people that know what the hell they are talking about than to watch someone struggle through something.

I used to think denial an delusion were temporary defense mechanisms to combat insecurity. I now think that they may be serious disorders that should be coverage by all insurance plans.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I've come to the conclusion that it is much more edifying to read things by people that know what the hell they are talking about than to watch someone struggle through something.

If they can make sense of it.

EU's arrogance is both humorous and I'm sure restricted to the internet. I get genuine delight from his incessant ignorance.

Okay, I've heard so many differing opinions that I'd like to know what you guys (who seem quite knowledgeable in the area of SW) have to say.

All I'm looking for is a 1-10 ranking list of the most powerful force-users to ever exist (Jedi or Sith.) I'd like to base this list solely off of feats if at all possible. I appreciate any help.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Yes, the typical defensive arguments for philosophy students. One can say that religious beliefs challenge their insecure and precious perception of logic. Philosophy students are people who want others to take them seriously and desperately seek approval as "intelligent". They regurgitate their nonsense but when faced with an argument that isn't philosophical, they're lost beyond belief. And yes, it's mental masturbation when I have to sit there when someone asks "what is truth", "what is love". I'm sure these things are all very relative to our well being and everyday lives.

Excuse me.
Do non-religious concept challenge your insecure and precious perception of reality? Does a sunrise become less beautiful, when - instead of being "orchestrated" by some omnipotent being, it's just a result of coincindence on a cosmic scale? Just asking.

And I'm quite certain you don't have the slightest idea what it means to study philosophy. The bullshit you're dropping on the table right now is enough to prove my suggestion right here. Notice that philosophy is "limited" to applied philosophy nowadays, which has pretty much nothing to do with the thought-experiments you listed above. Actually, about 75 % of the art is based on the attempt to examine the working of the human mind (cognition, self-perception and so on), while the other 25 % are philosophical views closely tied to everyday life - including the "philosophy of law".

Without that "mental masturbation" your field of study would be pretty much non-existant. I just wanted to mention that because, apparently, you can't find the link between thinking and acting (in this special case).

Right.. I spend a month sitting in a class where the teacher tries to disprove God. Completely logical.

This can't be done in a "logical" fashion.

I didn't change the rules because you don't make the rules, nor were any rules clearly established before we began. I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself. GOD is infallible. From GOD's standpoint, he knows what choices we are going to make. He does NOT force us to make ANY choice, he just knows what we're going to do. The fact that he KNOWS has no bearing on the fact that we have a CHOICE. We do not KNOW what he knows, or what consequences our choices will bring. We just know that we can
choose A, B, C, etc.

I despise it when religious people are attempting to use "logic" in order to enforce their beliefs.

I have a question for you: Assuming that god knows all of our decissions, we have to assume that something does lead to those decissions. You may now site certain circumstances here: a good / bad childhood, education, experience - whatever.

Now, of course, all "conditions" that coin us and mark our way through our decissions are the result of decissions made by other people, who made them based on conditions that were again the result of decissions made by other people. And so on and so forth.

But: If you assume that is true, most "religious" views don't make sense any longer. Why? Because in the system as descriped above, God would be the first mover. So if you go back far enough every decission you make today would be a result of Gods actions when he created earth - because he created all conditions that led to the development of mankind.

In such a system, free will wouldn't exist either, because God has created the initial set of conditions in a way that led to all decissions following from there - which he knew in advance. That would turn God into the sole responsible figure for everything happening and would render all concepts of thinking or interaction void. With the initial set of conditions [regardless when its creation happened] God has pre-determined everything, because everything is an result of said initial conditions.

Yet, if you are really religious, you would have to reject the concept of determinism for that very reason. God left us with the ability to decide what to do regardless of initial conditions. Even if all conditions should lead to person X becoming a murderer, person X does need the ability to freely decide whether or not he / she pulls the trigger. If that chance doesn't exist (and it would if anything is determined to happen), God could as well personally kill the victim, because he set all the events into motion that (thousands or millions of years later) led to the murder.

Originally posted by Merlyn
Okay, I've heard so many differing opinions that I'd like to know what you guys (who seem quite knowledgeable in the area of SW) have to say.

All I'm looking for is a 1-10 ranking list of the most powerful force-users to ever exist (Jedi or Sith.) I'd like to base this list solely off of feats if at all possible. I appreciate any help.

(Bonus points if you can point out where I stop being serious.)

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
1. Darth Sidious/Luke Skywalker
2. Darth Sidious/Luke Skywalker
3. N.
4. Darth Revan
5. Darth Bandon
6. Opo Chano
7. Luuke
8. Raynar Thul
9. Jacen Solo
10. Yoda

(Bonus points if you can point out where I stop being serious.)

stopped being serious at 3.

1. Luke
2. Sidious
3. Yoda
4. Darth Bane
5. Kyp Durron?
6. Darth Caedus
7. Darth Vader
8. Mace Windu
9. Galen Marek
10. hmmmm.... Whichever of the Ancient Sith? Kun?

List completely off the top of my head: Others that might fit:

Kyle Katarn, Anakin Skywalker, Kar Vastor, Revan, Exile, Marko Ragnos, Darth Zannah, (we shall see on that one) C'baoth... any others i'm missing?

Originally posted by Borbarad
Do non-religious concept challenge your insecure and precious perception of reality? Does a sunrise become less beautiful, when - instead of being "orchestrated" by some omnipotent being, it's just a result of coincindence on a cosmic scale? Just asking.

In such a system, free will wouldn't exist either, because God has created the initial set of conditions in a way that led to all decissions following from there - which he knew in advance. That would turn God into the sole responsible figure for everything happening and would render all concepts of thinking or interaction void. With the initial set of conditions [regardless when its creation happened] God has pre-determined everything, because everything is an result of said initial conditions.

Yet, if you are really religious, you would have to reject the concept of determinism for that very reason. God left us with the ability to decide what to do regardless of initial conditions. Even if all conditions should lead to person X becoming a murderer, person X does need the ability to freely decide whether or not he / she pulls the trigger. If that chance doesn't exist (and it would if anything is determined to happen), God could as well personally kill the victim, because he set all the events into motion that (thousands or millions of years later) led to the murder.

I'm not really sure how the 2nd paragraph can't work with God being both omniscient, and leaving us with the choices of deciding what to do. Is he forcing something on us? Is he only giving us one choice? Or is he letting us live our lives the way we want, yet still ultimately knowing what we're going to do. This is the Jewish belief and one I share.

Originally posted by truejedi
stopped being serious at 3.

What you've just said, is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that can be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

1. Luke
2. Sidious

kk

3. Yoda
4. Darth Bane

I'd be willing to put Bane above Yoda, as well as some of the ancients.

5. Kyp Durron?
6. Darth Caedus

7. Darth Vader
8. Mace Windu
9. Galen Marek
10. hmmmm.... Whichever of the Ancient Sith? Kun?

Also: where the hell is Revan?

check my edit. durron i'm not sure i would drop, pending my discussion with gideon about how close he is to luke. tell me about the ancients, i don't read comics. I really only know them from Jedi Academy series, the JA game, and KOTOR. I don't take Kreia's lies as truth.